quadro_controversias

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses output format (landscape formatted table), save location, the required pre-analysis workflow, and two hard constraints (never a statement without source, quotes must be validated first). It does not state overwrite behavior or permission requirements, leaving a modest gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with verb+resource+format, then workflow and constraints; nearly every clause carries operational value. It is dense with emphasis caps but not padded, though the run-on structure could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a document-generating tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and no annotations, the description covers generation, location, required prior analysis, and integrity constraints. Only edge behaviors like file overwrite and permissions are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it substantially does: it defines the row shape {tema, autor, reu, situacao}, gives an example enum for situacao, and shows how caso maps to a path. However, the titulo and arquivo parameters are never explained, so half the surface remains undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Gera) and resource (Quadro de Controvérsias), plus concrete output format (.docx, paisagem, tabela formatada) and destination (<caso>/relatorios/). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming the companion tools (buscar, obter_pagina, validar_citacoes) that surround this task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to perform the análise beforehand and to cross-reference inicial × contestação using buscar/obter_pagina, and mandates validar_citacoes before any literal quote. Routing is clear, but no 'when not to use' boundary or exclusion is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.